text:
Why should pilots keep the engines running so they are hot or warm immediately after landing?
Understandably, airliner pilots - particularly those operating in extremely cold climates and airports - should preheat the engine at idle for 3 minutes or more so they do not apply full thrust and subsequently take off and fly dangerously on cold or frozen oil.
one answer to a question that refferenced to a day that electric towing becomes feasible and as fast and as good as engine powered taxiing stated that electric taxiing would not work because an engine should not be immediately shut down despite supplying outside solar electric power to the aircraft for airconditioning and hydraulic functions because engines should not be shut down immediately
But why should pilots keep the aircraft's engines running and not shut down immediately post landing? How do ground support work on the aircraft when its engines are running and how do passengers disembark in places that aren't equipped with jetties? Someone made the argument for the need to keep the engines running after landing when I suggested an electric towing system that could be installed along the runway for taxiing pre and post flight to save tonnes of fuel.

"How do ground support work on the aircraft when its engines are running and how do passengers disembark in places that aren't equipped with jetties" that looks like a random question in the middle of the sentence. Could you please clarify?

I assume for safety, engines are shut down completely when passengers and ground support are on the ground

I don't really understand your question. Are you saying that pilots should or should not keep the engines running on the ground? Engines are running after landing because the aircraft has to taxi to its stand, but after that I have no idea why you think they're still running. But I may have misunderstood you, so please consider asking your question in a shorter, simpler way.

I am saying one answer to a question that refferenced to a day that electric towing becomes feasible and as fast and as good as engine powered taxiing stated that electric taxiing would not work because an engine should not be immediately shut down despite supplying outside solar electric power to the aircraft for airconditioning and hydraulic functions because engines should not be shut down immediately

@securitydude5 I actually think you have a valid question, though to help others understand, it would be useful to link to the question/answer you mentioned and make it clear your scenario is at an airport where aircraft are towed once clear of the runway.

Especially once you get into the bigger jets/bigger engines where such fuel saving would make sense, you need to consider reverser usage and engine cooldown time: the larger the airplane, the more likely it will need to use full-thrust when deploying reversers to slow down after landing.
Shutting down an engine imediatelly after running at full thrust is generally a bad ideea, and most engines have a specified number of minutes to be run at idle after using full-thrust reverse, before being allowed to be shut down. By that time the plane is mostly at the gate, so any saving from the electrical towing is greatly reduced.

I believe reversers are not used very often

Normal SOP at my company is full reverse every landing, as it is a safety-related item. In practice, the manual allows you to only deploy the reversers (always!) but stay at idle thrust if full reverse is not needed. Mind you, with auto-brakes the reversers will not reduce landing distance much, it just means the brakes have to work harder. If you have a contaminated runway or a brake fault, then reversers might save your life

My belief was false then

The engines supply power for the aircraft's systems: hydraulics for the steering and brakes, electrical power for the control system, electrical power and air conditioning for the interior. If you shut off the engines, you have to start an APU first (if one is available on the plane, not a given).
You can switch off most engines, but generally one has to be running.

In addition to Hobbes' answer you have to consider that "immediately after landing" the aircraft is on the runway. Without engine power it is unable to vacate it, nor to taxi to the gate. This would have severe repercussions on the airport schedules (waiting for a tow-truck to show up, link, and pull the aircraft away is a massive waste of time).
There are ideas around that aim to change this, but until those solutions are certified and adopted, the current status is that engine power is needed for taxiing.


text:
Why didn't the EASA enforce the 2 man cockpit rule BEFORE the Gemanwings accident?
International numbers state that planes downed by pilot or co-pilot due to suicide are a rare but still possible occurrence.
In the United States such a safety procedure is standard (as of 9/11 - if I remember correctly). Why didn't the EASA think of that earlier?

Note.  On 9/11, there were already 2 crew in the cockpit when they were taken over.

Oh wow thanks, I didn't know that. Do you have a document or an official statement that proves that?

Because of 9/11, the rule that cockpit door must be locked was introduced. And the two men rule went with that to handle situation when one of them is incapacitated (which does happen occasionally) so there is still somebody to open the door. It was relaxed when the emergency code that opens the door from outside unless rejected in some time limit was introduced. IIRC it was relaxed everywhere, provided the emergency entry code is available.

@Jan Hudec So 2 men cockpit rule in the US did go hand in hand with 9/11? Is that correct?

@Elena: Yes, but indirectly. It was only instantiated because the first door locks didn't have the emergency code.

I didn't mean that the rule was in place, just that on all 4 aircraft., both crew were in the cockpit.  I would guess that was part of the plan - don't attack if one of the cockpit crew is not in the cockpit.  The point being that the 2 man rule would have had no affect on the outcome. Jan Hudec has correctly identified why the rule exists.

Graveyard evolution; new advances are only pushed through when the existing situation is provably not safe.
Aviation history is rife with examples of safety measure being taken after an incident of accident that could have been prevented by that measure.

Thats what I thought. In their last update on cockpit rules they stated: "EASA publishes today a temporary recommendation for airlines to ensure that at least two crew, including at least one qualified pilot, are in the flight crew compartment at all times of the flight." Why the hell do they only recommend and not require, and why only temporary? They are a regulatory and executive agency - they should be much more stricter with that!!!!

@Elena Because hasty rule patching causes more harm than good (just ask your local legislative body). Many times there are unforeseen consequences to the rules.

@Elena Because the EASA possibly does not come to the same conclusion the FAA or other CAAs came to and therefore only issued a temporary recommendation. Many, me included, will argue that the two-man cockpit rule is only changing things for the sake of change and purely cosmetic to show the public that actions are being taken (even though they are ineffective).

@Sentry Raven so what kind of regulation can be enforced in order to prevent future plane accidents due to intervention by pilot or co-pilot?

@Elena To be brutally honest, none! There is no way to exclude 100% of all possible scenarios. You can work to minimize or eliminate the probability of some of the possible scenarios, but you will never create a 100% working solution for everything. Look at it this way: The door lock was introduced to keep intruders out of the cockpit. The copilot in GWI18G used that against the pilot. What would be the logical consequence? Remove the door lock! What does that open up again? Possible threat from external intruders! Too many possible threat to consider, so you focus on the most probable ones..

@SentryRaven makes sense, there are just too many scenarios to consider. So basically you are saying that the 2 man cockpit rule is nonsense anyway. Its just been enforced to calm down the public but practically it won't ensure safety at all (in case of pilot/copilot suicide)?

@Elena That is my personal opinion, yes. Does it help raise the psychological threshold for pilot or copilot to deliberately crash the aircraft? Yes. Can the copilot/pilot overpower the other pilot/copilot? Yes. Can the copilot/pilot overpower an FA? Yes. Does it also open another can of worms by allowing non-trained personnel into the cockpit? Yes. To me, this is a zero sum game with this change, to show the public that something is being done. I kindly invite you to the Aviation.SE chat to continue the discussion.

@SentryRaven thanks, will happily join!

One side effect of such a rule is that it lowers the bar for the position someone would have to obtain to take over the aircraft -- instead of needing to become a pilot to gain access to the cockpit during flight, one need "only" become a flight attendant to be in a position where they can gain access to the cockpit with only a single pilot present who could be incapacitated.  (I realize one can't just walk off the street and become a flight attendant, but it's much easier to become a FA than to become a pilot on a large aircraft)

Because aviation procedures and rules develop from historical occurances.
In some cases, the actual occurance and the resulting change in procedures do not have anything in common or are not related, e.g. some will argue that the two-man rule would not have prevented 9/11. It is also being discussed that the two man rule would only have had a psychological effect to deter the pilot/copilot from deliberately crashing the plane (as in the Germanwings crash), some will argue that a pilot or co-pilot intent to deliberately crash the airplane will not be deterred by a flight attendant in the cockpit, who due to lack of flight education would not be able to counter the pilot's/copilot's input in the FMC/AP.
The cockpit door measures to deny unauthorized access to the cockpit were implemented because the threat was assumed to come from outside the cockpit. You cannot implement measures that will work against everything and every threat, internal or external. Hence why EASA (and this is only speculative, because we can't know for sure) did not implement a two-man rule and currently has not implemented one, the two-man rule is a airline SOP issue at the moment.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
What are the best practices for gathering preflight weather and information?
As a VFR student pilot, I'm still developing a pre cross-country flight routine. Weather has without a doubt been the most difficult portion of my preflight information to digest, as there are so many different sources and formats for it.
What are the generally acknowledged best practices (and sources) for assembling a complete understanding of all weather pertaining to a cross-country flight in a timely manner?
EDIT: This question is primarily focused within the continental United States, although answers pertaining to any region are more than welcome.

Where though? I wouldn't know where to look for US weather, but I have a few good sources for EU weather when planning flights...

For the UK, there is one definitive source for METAR and TAF. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/ga-briefing-services/taf-metar

This is a document that Embry Riddle put together.  I still use it as a private pilot when planning flights.  Some of it's out-dated (it's from 2005), but it's a pretty great place to start. https://mega.co.nz/#!kBQXkZjL!0ulFE0F6RcIlTXmXngiqL496nVL1-VenlFjXVx6mCCs  As for sources, everything can be found on http://aviationweather.gov

Weather briefings (electronic or over the phone) are in a standardized format.  So practice by getting the weather every time you go for a lesson.  Your instructor should be more than willing to go over the brief with you and point out areas of concern based on his or her specific knowledge of the area and specific hazards or tricky places.

@KeeganMcCarthy http://aviationweather.gov is a great resource - The only things to be aware of with it are that it's just weather (they don't have a TFR map, for example), and the information you get there is not recorded (there's no evidence that you were briefed except the cache on the computer you used, and maybe they could pull something from the server logs if you logged in to see your saved favorite maps).

@voretaq7 I've now heard several mentions of having "evidence" of a weather briefing, such as DUAT, Foreflight, or 1-800-WX-BRIEF. Is this proof a requirement, or simply insurance with which to defend yourself in a post-emergency report?

@voretaq7 Could you explain why proving receipt of a weather briefing could be important?

@CGCampbell If you have received an official (recorded/documented) briefing and subsequently blow through a TFR or something along those lines the evidence that you received a briefing (and that the briefing did not contain the information you would have needed to avoid making that error) is good protection if the FAA comes after you for the violation. Basically it's to cover yourself by demonstrating an effort to comply with FAR 91.103's "all available information" requirement.

At least in the US there are plenty of ways to get a flight briefing.
My usual sources of pre-flight information are, roughly in order:

The Weather Channel
No kidding, if I'm planning a long/multi-day trip I'll start looking at the long-range forecasts 10 days before my flight using The Weather Channel's iPhone app or their website.
As far as weather information goes it's pretty decent (which means "frequently wrong up until 24 hours before go-time, but still worth paying attention to").
Charts (VFR or IFR), Airport Diagrams, and the A/FD
If you're planning more than a hop around the local pattern you should familiarize yourself with the airspace you'll be passing through, landmarks (and obstacles) on the ground, and navaid / airport frequencies. Charts and other FAA publications provide a great way to do that, and you can also usually pick up a phone and call the airport you're flying to for additional information.
All of this documentation is available in a variety of forms - Paper, electronic downloads direct from the FAA (as linked above), or as part of flight-planning software like Foreflight, Garmin Pilot, WingX Pro, etc.
The National Weather Service
A few days before a planned flight it's worth reading the forecaster's discussion to see how confident the people predicting the weather are about their guesses. This is also something you should check the day of departure if there's any uncertainty about the weather.
Electronic briefing tools (DUAT/DUATS/Foreflight/etc.)
About 24 hours out you can get official briefings from DUAT/DUATS/Foreflight and a bunch of other flight planning tools. Get them and learn to read them.

Electronic briefings from many of these tools are recorded and count as an "official briefing" - a record is made that you requested and received the information. You are responsible for understanding all the information that just got dumped in your lap however, and that's a huge responsibility, especially for a student pilot!

Flight Service Briefings (1-800-WX-BRIEF)
The day of departure your final briefing should be a phone call to flight service to speak with an actual briefer to review your flight. If you can sit down and have your electronic briefing from #3 in front of you it's very helpful because you can follow along with the briefer to be sure you didn't miss anything.

Calls to Flight Service are recorded and count as an official briefing. If you're unclear on anything you're being told you can ask for clarification.

Of all the tools available I personally think the best one is calling flight service and speaking to a briefer. If your instructor has never made you do this I'd say they're skipping out on a critical bit of your training, and you owe it to yourself to pick up the phone and .
This is your big chance to talk to a live human being and ask any questions - big ones that I always ask are "Are there any TFRs along my route of flight?", and if I'm anywhere near a restricted area I'll check its status ("Is R-12345 active?").

One additional place to look that's not on my list above is http://tfr.faa.gov - This lists TFRs that have been announced in advance, as well as "pop-up" TFRs for things like forest fires. The electronic briefing tools usually incorporate graphic TFR overlays on whatever chart you're using (and your telephone briefer will tell you about them), so this is a resource I don't use as frequently.

Similar to the TFR site, sua.faa.gov gives present and future status of Special Use Airspace.

The first thing you should consider (and rely on) is METAR. If you want to understand METAR, read this and this.
FAA has a document for this. If you still like to read more, FAA Safety published this PDF too.
Aviation Weather Center is a government website, which focuses on weather briefings related to aviation.
A flying school (near my place) has a link on their website to this service. I like the visual aspect of AWOS on this. They do not provide this service for all airports, but only for a handful.
As a student, if you think weather is not good for flying, trust your gut and do not fly. No one would argue with you that any briefing says otherwise.
UPDATE:
AOPA has a service too.
There are several apps which might be useful (e.g. ForeFlight, or this or this). I have not tried any. In an AOPA weather seminar, they mentioned that those apps do not present real time data but lag several minutes behind.

Thanks for the answer. Of the sites like duat.com and duats.com, is there one that is known to be simpler to understand or more inclusive?

@pheidlauf I have not used DUAT/DUATS, so cannot comment. I guess the best service would be which is easy to understand for you, won't leave any information out, and is real time (or very close to it).

@pheidlauf For simplicity (at least in the US) you can't beat picking up a phone, dialing 1-800-WX-BRIEF, and talking to a real live human being. You will get the same information from DUAT/DUATS and other official briefing services, but having a real person to review the information with is helpful.

@voretaq7 I've never actually called for a live weather briefing, as my instructor has primarily pointed me towards DUAT. I have no experience with it. What should I expect when calling, and how long is the "normal" duration of a call (if there is such a thing)?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Can a commercial aircraft be detected by ATC's / Radar systems if all its engines fail?
In an event of failure of all engines of a commercial aircraft in mid air and no secondary backup or generators powering the plane (plane is virtually powerless and no comp systems work on board), would the ATC still be able to detect the aircraft with accuracy and if yes how is it done ? Are there any conditions that it has to be flying in an area which is monitored or any basic stuff which HAS to be working for ATC to detect ?

Note that most modern aircraft are not even controllable without power as they use hydraulics to carry the control commands and it needs to be pressurized. As far as I know it never happened (there is the ram air turbine as power source of last resort).

@JanHudec My aircraft has hydraulic flight controls and can still be flown without electricity and even without hydraulics using manual reversion. FBW (fly-by-wire) aircraft are a notable exception to this though, and may be what you are referring to even though there are plenty of modern non-FBW aircraft out there.

@Lnafziger: Yes, I should have said large aircraft. FBW has nothing to do with this and as far as I know all FBW aircraft can be flown using manual reversion without the FBW part operating. But on large aircraft even the reversion often needs hydraulics. UA232 was not controllable without hydraulics nor was this DHL A300, neither of which was FBW (both had engine power and had limited control using those).

@JanHudec Well, my aircraft meets the FAA definition of large as well, and the Airbus FBW is 100% computer controlled. If it loses every source of electricity (highly unlikely) then there is no manual reversion/conttol.

@Lnafziger: The documents I've seen clearly state that if A320 looses all sources of electricity (or all primary flight computers die), the rudder pedals and elevator trim still work as long as there is pressure in the hydraulic system. And that it was demonstrated the aircraft can be controlled this way (using trim wheel and without direct roll control).

@JanHudec Yes, you are correct on that point. They are still not controllable without any source of power though, even though some aircraft with hydraulic flight controls are. That's what I am trying to point out in any case.

There is an intermediate step between FBW and hydraulically-assisted mechanical controls, and that's hydraulically-activated. UA232 was such a plane? The Robinson R44 has hydraulically-assisted controls and can be flown with difficultly with hydraulics broken or disabled.

In an event of failure of all engines of a commercial aircraft in mid air ...

That would be a very rare event. In the modern cases where this has happened within an ATC area, it has not prevented location of the aircraft so far as I know.

... and no secondary backup or generators powering the plane

Even a two-engined airliner has an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and a Ram-Air Turbine(RAT). I believe they also typically have 10-15 minutes battery power for critical systems. I don't know if any airliner has ever lost all generators other than in cases where the aircraft was destroyed in flight (e.g. PanAm 103).

would the ATC still be able to detect the aircraft with accuracy

If an aircraft's transponder and secondary-radar are not operating, ATC would rely on primary radar, which is less accurate, particularly for altitude. They would also ask the pilots for their position over VHF radio and ask other aircraft in the area to locate the aircraft.

Example: British Airways Flight 9
All four engines flamed out due to ingestion of volcanic ash.

Despite the crew "squawking" the emergency transponder setting of 7700, the aeroplane could not be located by Air Traffic Control on their radar screens.

The pilot communicated with ATC over VHF radio and later restarted the engines.

The engines had enough electrical power to restart because one generator and the onboard batteries were still operating

Example Air Canada Flight 143 (the "Gimli Glider")
This 767 ran out of fuel mid-air and all engines stopped.

The 767 was one of the first airliners to include an Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS), which operated on the electricity generated by the aircraft's jet engines. With both engines stopped, the system went dead, leaving only a few basic battery-powered emergency flight instruments.

The pilot communicated with ATC Winnipeg and

First Officer Maurice Quintal began to calculate whether they could reach Winnipeg. He used the altitude from one of the mechanical backup instruments, while the distance traveled was supplied by the air traffic controllers in Winnipeg, measuring the distance the aircraft's echo moved on their radar screens.

So yes, If the aircraft with all engines out is in radar range and ATC are attentive, they can track the aircraft's location.

and the OP: there is a nice picture of an Airbus RAT in this question: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7702/need-hi-resolution-photo-of-the-rat-from-an-a320-airbus

Transponders aren't typically powered by a standby or hot-battery bus so once the primary power source (i.e., engine or APU generator) goes away so does the transponder.

Primary radar (send out radio pulse and interpret reflections) was designed for this (detect uncooperative enemy aircraft).
A more complete explanation of this system can be found on the answers of this question.
Having said that, when all engines fail the backup is a Ram Air Turbine which gets deployed automatically and provides enough power for critical systems including controlling the craft, radio and transponder. Having every backup fail is extremely unlikely.

Not all aircraft have an RAT.  :-)

RAdio Detection And Ranging do not require active participation from the airplane, so ATC will still see it. However, ATC will not know of the plane's condition and will likely not be able to communicate with them.
Pretty much, if the craft is made out of metal and is reasonably high in the air, ATC will see it. Most non-metals will show up on radar as well, such as this guy.

Except most ATC stations do not have primary RADAR.

Radar doesn't require active participation... well when it uses the echo for detection. But the secondary radar (SSR), which is also a radio detection (in azimuth at least) and ranging device uses the reply from the transponder on-board, not the echo. Without participation SSR is unable to provide information.


text:
What are the FAA requirements for when to use an airline call sign & flight number versus the aircraft registration number?
Is there any FAA guidance which specifies when a call sign & flight number or registration number must be used for Part 91 & 135 operations?
I am familiar with the guidance on how to obtain an ICAO call sign (and in fact work for a company who has one), but am unable to find anything which specifies when one must be used versus the other.
So basically, can commercial flights file under the registration number and can private flights (re-positioning flights, etc.) file under the company call sign?  I understand that this is backwards from "typical" use, but is it legal?

Related, although it doesn't address the part about filing

@Pondlife Absolutely, there are a few about getting the call sign and how to use them, but none addressing the requirements about when to use them.

FAA AIM Section 4-2-4 has guidance on using call signs and registrations in certain situations.

@RonBeyer Thanks for the link, but I don't see anything which addresses when to use one versus the other there.

@Lnafziger Subsections 3, 4, and 5 don't clear that up for you about civil aircraft, air taxi, and air carriers?

@RonBeyer Actually, no.  Two reasons:  The wording is that they "should" (and I'm specifically asking about requirements/regulations), and it does not address the difference between operating rules.  What do you do when you use an air carrier aircraft for a private flight (part of the original questions)?

It might fall under the "if you have a call-sign, use it", the only other document I can find that talks about when to use call signs is JO 7110.65W ATC Operations Section 2-4-20 which basically just reiterates what is in the AIM. "2. Air carrier and other civil aircraft having FAA authorized call signs. State the call sign followed by the flight number in group form." Doesn't seem to matter if its a positioning flight, if it has an ICAO call sign, it should be used.

@RonBeyer Part of what prompted this question is that I am conducting an internal evaluation checklist provided to us by a major safety organization, and one of the questions is to verify that "commercial flights are always conducted under a flight number, and private operations (e.g. repositioning flights) are always conducted under the aircraft registration number."  They reference Order 8900.1 as the regulatory requirement, but I can't find anything to back up the supposed "requirement".

At my airline, I've never seen or heard of ANYTHING but the airline callsign used, ever, including the part 91 flights that I've flown. Never, ever heard any of our jets flown with just the registration number. That said, I have heard fractional jets that switched from "(callsign) 123" on some legs to "N123QS" on others, so different rules in their world than mine. No guess if it's an OpSpec or a company policy driving our method, sorry.

@RalphJ That's my experience as well, which is why I'm looking for an actual regulation which covers this!  ;-)

I found something relevant buried in the depths of JO 7340.2 on contractions (i.e. abbreviations) for airlines, aircraft types etc. Section 1-4-2 says:

The company designator, together with a flight number, serves as the
  aircraft identification in the ATC system. Company designators are
  valid only for company business in accordance with the provisions of
  its operating certificate or servicing organization. Pilots will use
  standard identification procedures for personal flying

Compare that to the quote from your safety organization:

commercial flights are always conducted under a flight number, and
  private operations (e.g. repositioning flights) are always conducted
  under the aircraft registration number.

If you remove the words "e.g. repositioning flights" then it's saying almost exactly the same thing. What's really odd is that the checklist uses repositioning as an example of a "private operation" (the JO uses the words "personal flying", which has different connotations). I think most people would say repositioning is definitely company business. Perhaps it's just sloppy wording or a poorly chosen example.
As for the safety organization's claim that there are specific requirements in 8900.1, I couldn't find anything. The only vaguely similar thing I found is the 'use it or lose it' clause in 2-275:

B.    Failure to Use Three-Letter Company Designator and Telephony
  Designator. ATO AJV-2 will place on a watch list any company that does
  not use an assigned three-letter company designator and telephony
  designator for 2 years on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan
  in U.S.-controlled airspace. ATO AJV-2 will revoke and release any
  three-letter company designator and telephony designator that are not
  used for 3 years on an IFR flight plan in U.S.-controlled airspace.

Whoever wrote your checklist might be saying that you need to make sure that you're using your company call sign regularly to make sure you don't have it revoked, but that seems like a real stretch to me. And even if that is the case, it wouldn't explain why repositioning flights should be different. Since 8900.1 is a very large reference library, I'd ask the safety guys to point you to the exact document and wording.
Looking in the other usual sources (FARs, AIM, P/CG, ATC orders etc.) that you and Ron mentioned, I couldn't find any specific legal or regulatory requirements either. Almost every reference in FAA sources says "registration or call sign" or something similar (e.g. the AIM's instructions on filing flight plans), and the FCC regulations allow either in radio use (47 CFR 87.107).

Thanks for the research!  It does look like a wording/intent difference, as people casually use different terms to mean the same thing when they actually have different legal meanings (commercial/company business/part 135 (or 121 as appropriate) ).  Where it was fuzzy is when a flight is something like a non-commercial, part 91 repositioning flight, for company business, lol.  I was hoping for a letter of interpretation or something that was more specific, but this is a good find!


text:
Which airplanes are required to have a Flight Data Recorder in Europe?
I know that not all aircraft are required to have a Flight Data Recorder (FDR) in Europe (for instance, a small single-engine airplane doesn't need one), but many are, and depending on the age of the aircraft different types may be required.
I've done some searching but am much more familiar with FAA rules and can't seem to find even the right place to look for the "official" answer.
When is an FDR required to fly to Europe in a foreign registered aircraft (FAA if it matters)? I am curious about the actual EASA FDR regulations which cover all aircraft (both private and commercial).

If the aircraft is FAA registered, the destination of its flights makes no difference, the aircraft must have an FDR per 14 CFR 121.344. Unless you are asking if there is an EASA regulation that accepts the FAA standard?

@RonBeyer Not all aircraft operate under Part 121, and for that matter not all 121 aircraft are required to have them either.

Agreement between the USA and the EU on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety

@Lnafziger I understand that, I thought you were being specific to passenger operations. This document from EASA says that aircraft over 5700kg need FDR's. I think the section you are interested in starts on page 266. The agreement to honor the two is in the link mins posted, specifically Annex 1. These seem to apply to all EU member states that have accepted the agreement. The EASA operates under that agreement, not its own with the FAA.

Are you operating under part 91? Nevermind, just checked your profile: part 135

@DeltaLima I operate under both Part 91 and 135, which is why I asked the more generic question.

@Lnafziger It is harder to find out than I thought it would be. For the moment my feeling is that when operating under Part 91, no FDR is required. When operating under Part 135 you require a FDR (assuming your MTOM exceeds 5700kg). I'll put in an answer if I find a solid reference.

@DeltaLima That's similar to FAA regulations and what I'm hoping for, lol.  As J.Hougaard points out in his answer below though, ICAO recommendations require all aircraft with a MCTOW >27,000 kg to have one, so that makes me worry about EASA.

ICAO Annex 6 holds the answer.
For commercial aviation (annex 6 part I):

6.3.1.1 Types
6.3.1.1.1 Types I and IA FDR shall record the parameters required to determine accurately the aeroplane flight path, speed, attitude, engine power, configuration and operation.
6.3.1.1.2 Types II and IIA FDRs shall record the parameters required to determine accurately the aeroplane flight path, speed, attitude, engine power and configuration of lift and drag devices.
6.3.1.2 Operation
6.3.1.2.1 All turbine-engined aeroplanes of a maximum certificated take-off mass of 5 700 kg or less for which a type certificate is first issued on or after 1 January 2016 shall be equipped with:
a) a Type II FDR; or
b) a Class C AIR capable of recording flight path and speed parameters displayed to the pilot(s); or
c) an ADRS capable of recording the essential parameters defined in Table A8-3 of Appendix 8.
6.3.1.2.3 All aeroplanes of a maximum certificated take-off mass of over 27 000 kg for which the individual certificate of airworthiness is first issued on or after 1 January 1989 shall be equipped with a Type I FDR.
6.3.1.2.4 All aeroplanes of a maximum certificated take-off mass of over 5 700 kg, up to and including 27 000 kg, for which the individual certificate of airworthiness is first issued on or after 1 January 1989, shall be equipped with a Type II FDR.

For general aviation (annex 6 part II):

3.6.3.3 Flight data recorders - aeroplanes for which the individual certificate of airworthiness is first issued on or after January 1989
3.6.3.3.1 All aeroplanes of a maximum certificated take-off mass of over 27 000 kg shall be equipped with a Type I flight data recorder.
3.6.3.4 Flight data recorders - aeroplanes for which the individual certificate of airworthiness is first issued after i January 2005
All aeroplanes of a maximum certificated take-off mass of over 5 700 kg shall be equipped with a Type IA flight data recorder.

As rules and regulations tend to change from time to time, you should always check the latest edition of ICAO Annex 6 for current requirements.

ICAO Annex 6 applies to commercial and general aviation alike. For GA, you need to look in Annex 6 part II (e.g. http://www.iaopa.eu/static/CKFinderJava/userfiles/files/news/2014/beijing2014/ANNEX6partII,%207th%20Edition.pdf).

Right, the different part is what I meant to reference.  I'm looking for a general answer which shows all situations in which an FDR is required in Europe (not just commercial).  This is a great start and good references, thanks for your help so far!

I don't understand what you are looking for that is not listed in Annex 6. Could you please clarify your question?

Well, from your comments, the requirements are different for commercial and private operations, correct?  I would like the answer to describe the different requirements so that visitors with a question in the future can find the answer right here.  (As a general rule on SE sites, we don't like to rely on links because over time they will break and the answer won't be available anymore.)

Generally, I don't consider it good practise to quote laws and regulations, since they might change, and cause confusion for people who find this answer later, when the rules have changed. Never the less, I have added the relevant paragraphs as per your request.

So, to revisit this answer: These are the ICAO SARPS, but what are the actual EASA regulations as there are often differences between the two?


text:
If an aircraft does not have an FDR, must one be installed to comply with Flight Data Monitoring requirements in EASA countries?
Flight Data Monitoring (FDM), which analyzes FDR data to accomplish things like ensuring that pilots are following SOP's, is a requirement for EASA's Third Country Operators (TCO) certification, however certain (older) aircraft do not seem to require an FDR.
Does this effectively change the requirement so that an FDR must be installed in an aircraft in order to accomplish FDM or is there an exception for FDM as well?  I have been unable to find anything specifically addressing this.

Related documents: Annex III To ED Decision 2020-12-017R, ORO.AOC.130 and EU CAA CAP739 Flight Data Monitoring

Page 185 of the CAP739 document has some interesting tables that may help to clear this up.

@RonBeyer Interesting reading, but I don't see anything in either document which covers what I asked.

Yeah its not a straight answer, probably just a few pieces to a complicated puzzle of EASA regulations. I did find some references that QAR's may be used instead of FDR's, I'm not sure though if a QAR would be an easier/cheaper install than an FDR/CVR. It is also possible that nobody is using an older aircraft over the 27,000kg requirement where an FDM would be required, I guess the only way to know would be to look at all the equipment of operators not on the EU ban list...

@RonBeyer Well, from what I understand, a QAR works in conjunction with an FDR and simply records data from it to an easily accessible / replaceable media. At any rate, I agree that it's complicated, which is what led me to ask this question in the first place, lol.

For 20 PAX and more, it becomes mandatory.
https://www.lepoint.fr/sport/le-piper-malibu-un-avion-delicat-22-01-2019-2287804_26.php

Les boîtes noires sont obligatoires sur les appareils de transport public d'au moins vingt sièges.

My French is rusty, but the context of the article seems to be talking about a CVR, while the question is specifically asking about an FDR. Either way, the primary source of a regulation carries a lot more weight than what some reporter thinks he understood. (Not that the press ever gets their reporting wrong about aviation facts, right?)

It says the black boxes( in plural) become mandatory for 20 pax and more. Nevertheless I agree it is not strictly an aviation document.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Fuel price actually used in the industry
I know it's a bit off-topic but I guess some of the terminology used in the aircraft community is the same as in marine transportation.
I know that both aircraft and marine vessels use fuel. But if I'm looking at the fuel prices on a commodities exchange, I guess the price is a bit different from the actual prices someone must pay for fuel used in the industry.
Do you have a name/term for fuel prices used in the industry, like fuel industrial price or something like that?

Not clear.  Are you looking for the term "price at the pump"?  Jet fuel is not even listed on any commodity exchange that I am aware of.   Jet fuel is used by private and commercial.   What is the term in marine transportation?

It's also important to note that large airlines do a large amount of hedging when it comes to fuel. They buy contracts for oil futures on the commodities market in advance to provide price stabilization. Thus their true cost for fuel (the "pump price" as adjusted by the hedge price and the size of the hedge at any given time) will depend entirely on the airline's hedging strategy at that moment.

"marine vessels" actually burn everything, and with the least efficient engines: How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world. That's the way we get low cost stuff from China. Low cost for our generation, low life four our children.

Jet Fuel is not listed on the commodities exchange, at least not according to this list. For what its worth small boats use regular car gas or diesel fuel and some larger ships are powered by fuel oil but they use boilers as opposed to a reciprocating engine like on smaller boats. Small boat gas tends to command a higher price because it can not because its any different than car gas. This is largely because you cant pull a big boat and take it to the gas station to fill it up every time you need fuel. AvGas for piston pounders is 110 or 100 octane low led. This is every similar to car gas (but higher octane and leaded). It is more expensive since it is taxed differently. Jet Fuel is effectively kerosene.
In the end of the day these are all crude oil byproducts so if you are looking for a commodity price the price of crude oil will effect the price of aviation fuels the same way it effects the price of car and boat fuels. Crude oil prices are about as close as you are going to get.

Oil/fuel trading is not really my field of expertise, but IATA provides an overview of jet fuel prices at their website.
They show the current average price for various parts of the world.
The data is sourced from Platts, an organisation that tracks many energy / petrochemical commodity prices.


text:
Is an elevon (elevator + aileron) considered as an all-moving control surface?
The delta wing on Concorde uses elevon as its control surface. Is the elevon considered as all-moving control surface?

An All-Moving control surface is a surface where the complete structure acts as a stabilizer. For example, in case of a horizontal tailplane which can be completely moved to work as an Elevator - instead of just the trailing edge of the horizontal tailplane moving to work as a control surface. In such cases, it is called a Stabilator (Stabilizer + Elevator). Elevon is a control surface which is part of the main wing, but the trailing edge of the wing is moved to get Yaw and Roll control. This makes Elevon a normal control surface and Not an all moving surface.


text:
Why do Boeing aircraft have serrated engine nacelles, but Airbus does not?
Why do Boeing's new generation of jets (787, 747-8, 777X, 737MAX) have serrated engine nacelles whilst Airbus' latest (A350, A320neo etc) do not? I understand that Boeing's nacelles reduce turbulence and therefore noise. If this is the case, it would make sense for Airbus to utilise them as well, but it doesn't. So my question is, is this a patent thing or has Airbus found other ways to do the same thing?

It doesn't appear to be a patent thing. The main work on the chevron (shaped nozzles) was done by NASA. Every design decision in an aircraft is a compromise and this was no different. The addition of chevrons for noise suppression leads to a (small) increase in specific fuel consumption and Airbus considered it not worth it. Flightglobal quotes Dougie Hunter, A350 chief engineer as saying:

We didn’t get a noise advantage from chevrons, and there is a specific fuel consumption penalty, so we’ve not adopted them.

Airbus seems to have gone in the insulation and high bypass route for reducing noise. From the same article:

Goodrich is to build the engine nacelle for the A350’s GEnx engine, with Airbus supplying the composite inlet, which incorporates a “zero splice” acoustic inner barrel to provide a new level of fan-noise reduction.

As an example of the acoustic treatment of nacelle in A320 family, Airbus says:

The thrust reverser structure was acoustically treated along approximately
  half of its internal surface. It was clear that increasing this acoustic area would increase the acoustic sound absorption and hence decrease the overall measurable exhaust noise. The inner fixed structure was redesigned with increased acoustic area. In addition, the support struts and several fairings were also modified to include acoustic treatment. The result was an increase in the acoustic area of the thrust reverser by approximately 2 square meters (21.5 sq ft).

Airbus does use chevrons in some of the aircraft, like A321 along with nacelle acoustic improvements; however, the chevrons are available only in the inner (core) nozzle. The package is available as standard for CFM powered A321 aircraft and options are available for A320. The image below shows a A321 with chevron nozzles.

Image from pprune.org
According to Airbus:

The noise reduction package is currently offered as the basic standard on all CFM powered Airbus A321 aircraft. It is also optional on all the other A320 Family aircraft.

Not a patent thing? United Technologies sure has a different view on that.

@PeterKämpf, it's not a patent thing in the sense that the patent isn't unavailable to Airbus, not in a sense that it wouldn't be covered by patents at all.

@JanHudec: The answer implies that it is not restricted by patents because NASA did the work. This is plain wrong.

@PeterKämpf And GE claims them too: http://www.google.com/patents/US6360528 from the looks of it the United Technologies patent looks to be a slightly different shape. GE filed their patent 8 years before UT and NASA has rights to it.


text:
What is the weight of ballistic recovery systems?
How much does a Ballistic Recovery Systems parachute system weigh?  I wouldn't want to use a personal quadcopter or jetpack without one.  I wonder if they could be made small and light enough for a small JB-9 type jetpack.

A ballistic recovery chute would not help you on a jetpack as you would not be flying high enough to deploy it successfully.

It does on the Martin Jetpack and the point of having the rocket propelled parachute is so that it can deploy at low altitudes quickly.  I think they should scale it down, use all carbon fiber to lighten it up and integrate it into their own jetpack design....  expand and become vertically integrated !

You might consider a standard backpack parachute instead.

Not sure where this was missed, but the point of a Ballistic Recovery Systems rocket propelled parachute is to deploy a fully inflated parachute much quicker than a standard backpack parachute.  Therefore, at low altitudes it will allow you to continue to enjoy a bite of cheesecake, a walk around a lake and playing with your dogs whereas a standard backpack parachute in this case would be mean your dead.

A BRS system the size of Boba Fett's backpack with the rocket sticking out the top is what I'm thinking.  https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=boba+fett&view=detailv2&&id=E808371130693DDF13DB4E7BCD007B59D877EA81&selectedIndex=0&ccid=mb4%2fK%2b2G&simid=608024399114013564&thid=OIP.M99be3f2bed868f71f6a96236d22e5dcfH0&ajaxhist=0

The smallest BRS listed here is certified up to 600 pounds (272 kg) of aircraft weight. That should be more than enough for a small jetpack or personal quadcopter. This system weighs about 22 pounds (10 kg), not counting anything required to install it.
As GdD mentioned, altitude may be an issue. The FAQ for a Cessna 182 mentions an altitude loss of about 300 feet, and that is with a rocket deployment.
They make systems for many different types of aircraft and ultralights, some probably smaller than the 600 pound limit listed above. You should contact them if you have a serious interest in such a system.


text:
What airfoil simulation software is suitable for a cut trailing edge?
I'm looking for a way to simulate airfoils used to reduce turbulence.
airfoiltools.com already does this a long way.
However I have width and length limits, and I'm interested in comparing full profiles with profiles that are virtually longer but cut where the trailing end meets the boundary.
Can CAESES or SimFlow do this without too steep learning curve? (I'm a complete newbie.)
(Specifics: Chord 30 cm, width 25-30%, Reynolds number 1,500,000, NCrit 9, 50-70m/s)

One tool you might want to consider is MIT's XFoil. I'm not sure I fully understand what you'd like to do, but this tool is used in many of MIT undergraduate aerodynamics classes.
If you think it might work for your purposes, here is a course by the program's creator from MIT's OpenCourseWare site. Lecture 3 is a tutorial on how to use XFoil. You might want to browse the OpenCourseWare site for more advanced uses of XFoil, too.
Good luck!


text:
What are the (new?) FAR Part 141 rules for simulator hours for private pilots?
My son has started on his own at a Part 141 school in Vacaville CA that claims that mix of 18.9 hours flight and 36.3 simulator hours both with instructor will allow him to check-ride.  (Note that 18.9 allows only for 5 hr solo, 3 hr cross-country, 3 hr night, 3 hr instrument, and 3 hr prep check ride.
Are they blowing smoking knowing that he will need at least 16.1 hr more flight time to meet minimum FAR requirements? And knowing the national average is 60 hrs flight time. Isn't this just a marketing job to lower the total package price ($7,611) with more simulator time?

Possible duplicate of Can I count simulator hours towards a commercial flight certificate training?

Its possible its a lot of marketing BS, but it really depends on the type of simulator they have (ATD, FTD, class, etc). The recent FAA rules make simulator time towards ratings a lot more complicated. You should ask the school for statistics on simulator vs real time for check rides and if the school is reputable, they will have that, otherwise they are probably just regurgitating FAA minimums based on the equipment they have.

Ron, AATD simulator they note on brochure

Voting NOT to close, because while the answers have overlap, the questions are quite distinct. "What is 4+4" is not the same question as "what is 4+4+4" nor as "what is 16/2" even though there are common elements to the answers, or the same answer to two entirelt different questions. Related, yes. Duplicate, no.

I would be very, VERY reluctant to spend a dime there unless the local FSDO can tell you that this is legit. The Air Force uses simulators in its pilot training, but not to NEARLY that extent. Sims are good for teaching things like instrument flying & navigation, but awful for basic Private Pilot flying. I'd stronly question if this is a viable curriculum for ANYBODY to go from 0 hours to a successful Private Pilot checkride. Seems so far off the mark, I'd be VERY cautious of gross ineptitude there, and/or a scam. Be very, very cautious!

First, the new rules you're - probably - thinking about are for an instrument rating, not a private pilot certificate. So, that means that your question is essentially this: how much sim time can be credited towards a part 141 private pilot certificate?
Assuming that your son is doing ASEL (airplane single engine land), then the requirements are in 14 CFR 141 Appendix B. You can use a sim for 15% or 20% of "the total flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of this section [of part 141], whichever is less", depending on the capabilities of the simulator:

(2) Training in a full flight simulator that meets the requirements of
  §141.41(a) may be credited for a maximum of 20 percent of the total
  flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of this
  section, whichever is less.
(3) Training in a flight training device that meets the requirements
  of §141.41(a) may be credited for a maximum of 15 percent of the total
  flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of this
  section, whichever is less.

A part 141 airplane private pilot course must have a minimum of 35 flight hours training (a school can require more hours, but it can't require less than 35), therefore sim time can be credited for either 5.25 hours (15%) or 7 hours (20%). I don't see any way to reconcile those numbers with the ones you gave, although if your son is doing part of a much longer study course that includes instrument, commercial or ATP training then it could theoretically be a result of how his school organizes training time. That seems very unlikely to me, though.
As for your concern about lowering the package price, that's exactly why simulators are used in training (among other reasons) and there's nothing inherently wrong with using sim time instead of flight time for training. Just ask an airline pilot! But it has to be within what the FAA allows, so I can only suggest that you ask his school to put their claim in writing with references to both the FARs and their FAA-approved training program documentation. If they still make the claim, then forward all the docs to the local FSDO and ask for their confirmation.

Thanks for the lucid response. This is for my son's initial Private Pilots course only.  The outfit is a small FBO. The sales lady cited Part 141(d) which I can't find and then later Part 141.55 which doesn't take about this matter.

@JetToki You're welcome. 141(d) might be 141 Appendix D, which is for commercial pilot requirements, but that doesn't seem to be relevant here. Honestly, your numbers seem so unlikely that there's probably a misunderstanding somewhere. For example, is someone confusing "ground time" and "sim time"? Part 141 requires 35 hours of ground school too. I would look into it carefully before escalating anything with them.

I wish I could post a jpeg or pdf of their program sheet with the handwritten alternative.

Regular hours: 35 hours of aircraft rental, 10 hours of simulator (AATD), 45 hours air instruction.  The alternative hours: 18.9 aircraft rental, 36.3 simulator, 55.2 air instructions (just love those decimal points)

@JetToki Their curriculum is so good that they can move the sim instruction up from 1/4 or the program, to nearly 2/3 of it? IF this works & is approved, tested, and legal, it's a techtonic shift in flying training. Otherwise, it's a scheme to sell lots of simulator & instructor time, and the student won't be prepared (or eligible) for the checkride at the end of it -- he'll end up having to buy the flying hours somewhere anyway. Looks incredibly suspicious to me. A misunderstanding, maybe, but I'm skeptical it's even that innocent.

One final thought: even if it is approved & legal, I wouldn't pay for it without talking to guys who've had a successful checkride after having had only that level of actual flying training. Don't pay to be a guinea pig for an unproven radical new approach to training. Lots of concepts just take TIME in the actual airplane to wrap your head around, and these numbers look way, way too low to give a decent chance of success to most people.

Ralph, my sentiments exactly!  She said its "new" FAR 141 (d)?!  I guess at the end of the day, if my son ends up doing up to 50 hours as they say is the average for PP, then more sim time up front won't be such a bad thing and may even end up less expensive.

@JetToki you might want to take a look at RedBird SkyPort as a point of comparison: http://redbirdskyport.com/flight-school/private-pilot-course/ I'm not sure how many hours they require, but from what I've heard they have  really figured out the simulator integration with private pilot training (they make "affordable" full-motion GA simulators). I think they are the "gold standard" when it comes to using sims with private pilot curriculum.


text:
What is the risk of icing with water / moisture on wings prior to takeoff?
If a plane without any deicing equipment has water moisture on the wings (say, from sitting overnight) and that plane is then flown to an altitude which will have temperatures below freezing, what is the risk of that initial moisture causing icing concerns?
For the sake of hard examples:

Plane: Piper Cherokee 140
Air temperature on ground: 40°F (4°C)
Air temperature at cruise altitude (3500ft): 28°F (-2°C)
No visible moisture in the air, the only moisture is the moisture on the wings prior to takeoff.

Questions:

Will this be a problem?
If it is a problem, what is the best course of action to protect against the icing concern?

I hope you dont mind Ive taken the liberty of adding more international temperature units to your question

I hadn't seen 'centigrade' used rather than 'Celsius' in quite some time, so I Googled 'centigrade vs celsius' and learned a bit. See http://sciencing.com/celsius-vs-centigrade-7246502.html if interested.

Further, a centigrad is a possible metric unit of angle, equal to 1% of 1% of a right angle, so using Celsius avoids a possible ambiguity...

Taking off with wet wings is not a problem, the airflow is going to blow the water off long before it reaches the freezing point. There's no concerns here.
Given the scenario what I would be concerned about would be ice elsewhere on the airframe. 40°F (4°C) could mean that the aircraft was frozen overnight, and there could be ice left over where the sun didn't melt it off. That kind of ice wouldn't necessarily impact the airflow on the wing, but it would make the airplane heavier and therefore impact performance. A simple visual check on the walk-around will confirm this. If there is ice left then deal with it even if it's not on the wing or tail, if it's just wet then get in and fly.

Not only will much of the water be blown off, it will also evaporate (or sublimate if it freezes first). This is notable because it is common for water to adhere to the wing surfaces and not completely blow off.

Condensation on the outside of the plane might also suggest condensation in the fuel tanks - reminder to sump!

Will this be a problem?

As GdD mentions, this wont be a problem as most of the moisture will blow off by the time you get to the runway. I have had this occur on occasion on the Warriors and Archers I trained in, it was never an issue.

What is the best course of action to protect against the icing concern?

Straight moisture is never an issue but you should always confirm that this moisture is not the result of ice underneath. Here in the northeast there were some mornings where moisture on the wings froze over night if temperatures dropped enough. During sunrise this typically melted off but for an early morning departure this needs to be tended to. The best course of action is to either wait it out, usually by the time the sun is up over the horizon the ice will be melted off, or have the aircraft de-iced. Even small airports usually keep some de-ice fluid on hand.

With 20,000+ hours in everything from L19 Bird Dogs to Gulfstreams I though I should offer these thoughts/facts. The most remarkable and pertinent being my own experience with moisture freezing on takeoff. Ambient temperature was +2 C according to ATIS. Light rain had soaked the top of the wings on the King Air 200 I was flying. Immediately after flap retraction the airplane began to roll to the right. This was corrected with left aileron and we decided to return to land. On final the copilot looked out at the right wing and observed patches of frozen water droplets on the top of the right wing. As we landed back into the +2 C air, much of the frozen droplets blew off, however some still remained on the aft, inboard sections of both wings. I consequently contacted a source at NASA’s Icing Research unit at Cleveland Hopkins and he confirmed that the low pressure created on top of the wings as it accelerates on takeoff May cool the wing and water droplets to the point of freezing during takeoff BEFORE they are blown off. On critical wing surfaces we find on today’s aircraft this could have a negative effect on lift and cause control issues due to loss of lift.  Since this experience 25 years ago or so I have ALWAYS addressed any moisture present on lifting surfaces when he ambient temperature sits within a couple degrees of freezing either with anti-ice treatment or manually removing the moisture. Once you’re airborne with a rolling airplane it might just be too late.


text:
Why would a pilot ask the tower to turn the VASI off?
This past Saturday I was taking off from runway 22 at Catalina Airport (IATA: AVX) when I heard on radio a GA pilot requesting the tower to turn off VASI after requesting weather advisory.  I did not know if that airplane was on ground or in air.
As the clouds were gathering over and I am not an IFR pilot, I was concentrating on the fast moving clouds. After a while he asked for VASI to be turned back on.
I wonder why did that GA pilot ask to turn off VASI and get them turned on shortly afterwards?
On a side note, I got lucky and saw the giant Shuttle fuel tank being towed down below near LA Forum to LA Science museum; took some pictures!

when did you "hear" it? where?

I was landing a few weeks ago right on dusk and the tower asked me if the VASI was too bright for me (it wasn't). I wondered if he was just making fun of me for complaining about the sun glare a few minutes earlier...

On 25R KDAB, just before the approach end of the runway is a road, and before that a cemetery. I know an instructor who told his student during short final - "You're so low that I can read the names on the gravestones".

@RaajTram Embry-Riddle story?

@SMSvonderTann na :)

It could have been a flight instructor with a student that was becoming too reliant on the VASI's slope information for visual approaches to landing, and he wanted to force the student to do without.

Why not just take the student out to a dirt strip if you want to practice bush landings? OK, convenience maybe (in a densely-populated area you might have to fly for hours to get to an unpaved strip with just a windsock that'll let you touch and go).

To answer that pragmatically, it could be as simple as the instructor not feeling comfortable with the student landing on a soft field yet.

@KeithS The flight school (or more likely, its’ insurance company) may prohibit landing on unpaved fields. And in US metro areas, there may not be any public dirt strips anyway.


text:
Can I continue school for the PPL in another country in another flight school, if it is still inside EU?
I am attending flight school for PPL at the moment at a flight school in Italy.
Next year I will study in Germany. It is possible that I will not have finished the PPL until then. Now theoretically the university is still very near at my home place (3 hours with the car), so I could somehow manage to finish my license.
However, would it theoretically be possible to continue my license in Germany at another flight school? I can speak Italian, German and English fluently, so language wouldn't be a problem.

I tagged it for EASA regulations since it is what applies within the EU

English requires proper nouns to be capitalized. :)

Laws within the EU can vary, however I would assume it would be possible to carry on training in another country, however I am not sure.
The best way to know, would be to ask your flight school! :)
They may know, and could contact the school you want to move to and work out a deal.
Best of luck
EDIT: In my country (Australia) it is possible to continue training overseas, even though we are not part of an EU style union.
EDIT 2: As I stated, if you currently undertake flight training, your instructor would know better than any online message board.


text:
For supplemental oxygen, what is preferred between masks and cannulas?
There are two main types of supplemental oxygen devices in light aircraft:

Cannula:

Oxygen mask:

What are the major differences between these two devices? Is one more suitable for specific siutations than another, or is it just a matter of personal preference?

Cannulas are not effective above medium altitudes, and the FAA prohibits their use above 18,000 feet (FAA brochure on Oxygen Equipment, PDF). Because they only place oxygen at your nose, you don't receive oxygen when talking or breathing through your mouth, while a mask covers both nose & mouth. This is, obviously, not great.
Cannulas are also less comfortable than a nice-quality mic/mask, but that's my personal opinion. A lot of pilots do prefer cannulas for comfort at lower altitudes, as they're easier to don and allow you to continue using your normal headset mic boom. For most pilots, especially those flying normally aspirated aircraft types, it's a matter of preference.

Cannulas also cannot deliver as high a quantity of oxygen as masks

@SSumner yeah, that's why they're less effective at higher altitudes. The bigger problem, though, is that if you talk a lot, you're breathing through your mouth and not your nose, which means you're gonna get less oxygen overall.

One other big disadvantage of cannulas is that they dry out your nose.

From my EMT days, the maximum O2 delivery via cannula is 5 lpm, which is only sufficient as supplemental O2. And at 5 lpm, it's fairly uncomfortable and will dry your sinuses out quickly. The usual flow rate is 2-3 lpm. But a mask can deliver 15 lpm, which is enough to deliver near 100% concentrations of O2, and is much more comfortable.

The difference between an oxygen mask and nasal cannula is that you can talk if oxygen will be given through nasal prongs.

Pilots wearing oxygen masks can talk just fine too.  The only significant difference is that inside the cockpit, they have to use an intercom system to talk to the other pilot, instead of "just talking."  And they're using the mask mic rather than a hand mic.  But a cannula isn't the only thing that allows them to keep talking.


text:
Why isn't there a single start button for all systems on aircraft?
Why is it that airliners and aircraft do not have a single start button for all systems?
On TV etc., I noticed that pilots pressing buttons above and below forward and sideways, mostly above though, switching on button after button, switch after Switch.
Why not:

have single start button for all systems where a computer does all the check lists?
is because they need to do checklists hence the switches?

Considering not so long time ago airliners needed a Flight Engineer I can guess there's already a lot of automation in place

Maybe it's just a system integration problem. E.g. if a TV uses a separate set-top box and separate audio system, then turning on the TV as a whole system requires you to turn on three switches. For decades and after billions of TVs made and sold, nobody really bother to invest money on a single switch home-theater design (until very recently?).

Good question, actually the history of aviation teach us that: any technology on board is robust and capable to not crash or reboot for nothing. Behaviour you can see sometimes on brand new technologies. So everything which is on board is ten years old technology.
In the same time, the pilot needs to be able to switch off or on some systems if they are failing, if you automated all the sequence it start to be difficult to know if the pilot has the real control of the system.
It is only matter of safety and control. Because we already know that we are capable to automatically take off, fly and land UAVs. Why not in an airliner? Because safety. It has to be proven for a long time to convince safety agencies to make the step forward.

The age and engine systems matter a LOT here.  Older aircraft, especially older multi-engine turbojet aircraft like the early airliners, had multiple engine subsystems and less integrated monitoring capabilities.  These subsystems had to be managed/monitored individually, mostly to keep the many parameters within range during startup and to a somewhat less extent during normal operation.  Newer engines utilize more complete FADEC systems that in some cases do almost make the system as simple as "push to start" -- but at some level this is just a progression of the automation system.


text:
What US customs procedures must the pilot of a private aircraft follow when traveling in and out of the country?
As the Pilot In Command of a private aircraft, what are the customs procedures that must be complied with before leaving, before returning, and upon arrival to the USA?

General

Each person leaving the country must be authorized to return to the US.  (ie. they are a US citizen or their visa allows them to leave and return to the US.)
Ensure that you have all required paperwork

Pilot license
Medical
Aircraft Registration
The aircraft must have a current customs decal.

Ensure that the aircraft is properly equipped

12" Registration Numbers
Transponder

Before Leaving the US

File eAPIS

eAPIS is required to be filed at least 60 minutes prior to your departure.
Other third party services (ie. FlightPlan.com, etc.) may make this easier if you do it a lot.

File an international flight plan

May be an instrument or a defence VFR flight plan

Before Returning to the US

File eAPIS (see above)
File a flight plan (see above)
Notify customs and obtain permission at least one hour prior to landing in the US.  Record the initials of the customs officer that you spoke to just in case they misplace your notification.

Note that if you are coming from locations "south of the US" (for the specific definition, see here), you must stop at the designated airport closest to your point of border crossing to clear customs (unless you have an overflight permit).

Upon Arrival in the US

You must land at an airport of entry.
Report immediately to the designated customs location
Do not allow anybody or anything to leave/enter the aircraft until the customs official gives your permission

The only exception that I know of to this are the South Florida airports where you are expected to take all people and belongings into the customs facility for inspection.

Discard any international garbage in the approved manner.
Provide required paperwork

A Customs Declaration for each arriving family

Wait for customs to specifically tell you that you are cleared before you attempt to leave.

Notes
This is not all-encompassing, please help add to and expand this list so that others may learn from our experience!
A TON of useful information is made available by the FAA in the Guide for Private Flyers.

The FAA outlines the procedures on their website.
In short, you'll need proper documentation for the airplane, flight plans, passports for everyone on board, and more.

I am looking for specific procedures to follow, such as notification requirements, etc.  The site that you link to is a good start, but does not include everything.


text:
Is it legal to carry medical oxygen on an aircraft for a passenger?
If a passenger shows up with an oxygen tank, can they bring it with them on the flight if their doctor says that it is medically necessary, or is a compressed tank of air considered hazardous material?
What are the regulations that cover this for flights operated under Part 91 and Part 135?

FAR Part 135.91 notes that medical oxygen containers - whether for the storage, generation, or dispensing of oxygen - must be:

135.91.a.1.i Of an approved type or in conformity with the manufacturing, packaging, marking, labeling, and maintenance requirements of title 49 CFR parts 171, 172, and 173, except §173.24(a)(1)
135.91.a.1.ii When owned by the certificate holder, maintained under the certificate holder's approved maintenance program;
135.91.a.1.iii Free of flammable contaminants on all exterior surfaces; and
135.91.a.1.iv Appropriately secured.
135.91.a.2 When the oxygen is stored in the form of a liquid, the equipment must have been under the certificate holder's approved maintenance program since its purchase new or since the storage container was last purged.
135.91.a.3.i-ii When the oxygen is stored in the form of a compressed gas as defined in title 49 CFR 173.300(a) When owned by the certificate holder, it must be maintained under its approved maintenance program; and The pressure in any oxygen cylinder must not exceed the rated cylinder pressure.
135.91.a.4 The pilot in command must be advised when the equipment is on board, and when it is intended to be used.
135.91.a.5 The equipment must be stowed, and each person using the equipment must be seated, so as not to restrict access to or use of any required emergency or regular exit, or of the aisle in the passenger compartment.
135.91.b No person may smoke and no certificate holder may allow any person to smoke within 10 feet of oxygen storage and dispensing equipment carried under paragraph (a) of this section.
135.91.c No certificate holder may allow any person other than a person trained in the use of medical oxygen equipment to connect or disconnect oxygen bottles or any other ancillary component while any passenger is aboard the aircraft
135.91.d Paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section does not apply when that equipment is furnished by a professional or medical emergency service for use on board an aircraft in a medical emergency when no other practical means of transportation (including any other properly equipped certificate holder) is reasonably available and the person carried under the medical emergency is accompanied by a person trained in the use of medical oxygen.

Part 91 does not seem to speak to medical oxygen
Additionally, a page on the FAA website notes that:

In the DOT final rule, section 382.133 generally requires that air carriers conducting passenger service must permit someone with a disability to use an FAA-approved portable oxygen concentrator (POC) on all flights (on aircraft originally designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of more than 19 seats) unless the device does not meet applicable FAA requirements for medical portable electronic devices (M-PED) and does not display a manufacturer’s label that indicates the device meets those FAA requirements.

The page goes on to list approved oxygen containers. So, it seems that the FAA does not consider POCs to be hazardous, so long as they meet certain FAA approval standards. (If you are asking about General Aviation requirements, I would assume an FAA-certified POC is okay to bring on a GA flight as well)

Is a label on the bottle a flammable contaminant?


text:
What happens when an airplane gets struck by lightning?
I know that they certify airplanes for lightning strikes (at least some of them anyway), but does it cause any damage to the airplane or to the electronics?  Are there any required inspections if an airplanes is struck by lightning?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=036hpBvjoQw

The vast majority of aircraft require an inspection, from small Cessna singles to Boeing airliners. Usually, they require at the very least:

A visual inspection of the aircraft for damage, particularly the nose, tail section and wingtips. Most of the time, the damage is easily visible as "burn" marks or erosion of parts of the skin.
A check of the communication/navigation systems, both visually and functional testing
A check of all avionics, including GPS systems
Propeller should be removed and inspected by an A/P for damage
Engine should be inspected by a procedure similar to the following:

Remove the engine from the aircraft and disassemble it.
Inspect the engine for arcing and heat damage to the crankshaft,
main bearings, counterweights, camshaft lobes, bearings, gear teeth
and any other parts applicable to your engine. Any magnetic parts
should be degaussed following the specific procedure in your manual.
Measure each other part to make sure it is within tolerances for your engine.
Reassemble, then install the engine.

(depends on company) Send in an lightning strike report to your manufacturer
Confirmation of compass being within 10 degrees of another (stricter for transport low visibility operations) after completion of repair/inspection works

Sources:

Cessna 172R Maintenance Manual
Aero Magazine -- Lightning Strikes: Protection, Inspection, and Repair (Boeing, Q4 2012)
Continental Maintenance and Overhaul Manual: M-18

10 degrees? That seems like a lot of potential error

@raptortech97 It's within what you get written on the runways, and certainly within what a pilot should be able to correct when landing using a compass.

Does a pilot come to know if the plane has been hit by lightning?

This answer is kinda missing the interesting stuff. What does it look and sound like?

The one time that I was struck by lightning for sure (there with a couple of other times I wondered if I had) was in a Cessna 310. Everything was working after the strike. However, an inspection of the airplane afterward showed that the very aft end of the right tip tank had melted and then resolidified.
As I understand it, a lightning charge typically "flows" around the outside of a metal aircraft.

Did they have to repair the airplane?  If so, what was involved?

@Lnafziger No, nothing was found other than the spot of aluminum that had obviously melted. The aft end of the tip tank was just ever so slightly shorter than it had been.

Airplanes are designed to withstand lightning strikes, since they are expected to experience this in service. The goal is to conduct the current through the airplane while minimizing any damage this will cause.
Metal parts are naturally conductive, but composites need a conductive layer such as a metal mesh added to conduct the current. The parts also need to be connected, or the current will arc across the gap, possibly damaging both parts or sparking a fire. This connection can either be through properly installed fasteners like bolts or rivets, or through the use of bonding jumpers.
Fuel and electical systems in the aircraft require special attention. In the fuel tanks, parts must be connected well without gaps to avoid sparks that could ignite fuel vapors. Electrical systems must be sufficiently isolated to prevent lightning current from damaging them.
As this Boeing information shows, the protection required also depends on the location in the airplane. Different parts generally experience lightning strikes in different ways, and need different approaches in design.
The Boeing page also includes a flowchart for deciding whether a system needs to be inspected after a lightning strike. If the system was not used after the strike, it should be checked. If the system was used after the strike, it only needs to be checked if the system had anomalies in flight or of there is damage near the antennas for that system.


text:
Does a Second In Command have to be landing and instrument current like a Pilot In Command does?
When flying an airplane that requires more than one crew member, does the SIC need to be landing current and instrument current, or is this a requirement only for the PIC?
Does it matter which regulations that you are operating under (Part 91, 121, or 135)?

FAA
This is a compilation of what I could find relevant to the question. Feel free to come up with corrections if I missed anything (I'm an EASA FCL guy)
Co-pilot Landing Currency:

Part 61: 3 takeoff/landings in previous 12 months (61.55)
Part 135: no requirements other than those in part 61 (above)
Part 121: 3 takeoff/landings in previous 90 days (121.439)

Co-pilot Instrument Currency:

Part 61: no requirements for SIC
Part 135: 135.245 requires that SIC's must meet part 61 PIC instrument currency requirements in 61.57(c) (see below)
Part 121: recurrent flight training every 12 months, including at least 1 ILS approach to minimums

Following is the list of relevant FARs :
§ 61.55 Second-in-command qualifications

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may serve as a second in
  command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required
  pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second in command
  unless that person has within the previous 12 calendar months:
  (2)
  Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, performed and
  logged pilot time in the type of aircraft or in a flight simulator
  that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command
  privileges are requested, which includes --
  (i) Three takeoffs and
  three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight
  controls;
(d) This section does not apply to a person who is:[...operating part
  121,125,135...]
(e) The holder of a commercial or airline transport
  pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating is
  not required to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this
  section, provided the pilot: [... is not carrying paying
  passengers...]

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.

(a) General experience.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may
  act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an
  aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless
  that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within
  the preceding 90 days, [...]
(c) Instrument experience.
Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act
  as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the
  minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar
  months, that person has: [...6 approaches, holdings, intercepting
  &tracking course...]

§ 135.245 Second in command qualifications

(a) [...] no certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person
  serve, as second in command of an aircraft unless that person holds at
  least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and
  class ratings and an instrument rating. For flight under IFR, that
  person must meet the recent instrument experience requirements of part
  61 of this chapter.

This is an excerpt from an FAA Legal Interpretation concerning 135.245:

Next, unlike a PIC, an SIC's qualification to operate an aircraft
  under IFR in part 135 service is not dependent on compliance with §
  135.297.  Rather, § 135.245 sets the qualifications for pilots serving as SIC in part 135 operations.  It states that a pilot must meet the
  instrument experience requirements of part 61 to serve as SIC in
  flight under IFR.  Section 61.57(c) sets out the recent instrument
  flight experience requirements which include, among other things, six
  instrument approaches within the previous six months.  See Legal
  Interpretation to Gerald Naekel, from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief
  Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division (June 18, 1991) (noting
  that although the section title refers to pilots in command, the
  instrument recency requirements of that section apply to SICs).

§ 135.247 Pilot qualifications: Recent experience.

(a) No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person
  serve, as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers unless,
  within the preceding 90 days, that person has—
(1) Made three takeoffs and three landings as the sole manipulator of
  the flight controls in an aircraft of the same category and class and,
  if a type rating is required, of the same type in which that person is
  to serve; or [...]

§ Part 121.433 Training required

(c)Recurrent training. (1) No certificate holder may use any person
  nor may any person serve as a required crewmember on an airplane
  unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months --  (i) For flight
  crewmembers, he has satisfactorily completed recurrent ground and
  flight training for that airplane and crewmember position and a flight
  check as applicable;

§ Part 121.439 Pilot qualifications: Recent experience.

(a) No certificate holder may use any person nor may any person serve
  as a required pilot flight crewmember, unless within the preceding 90
  days, that person has made at least three takeoffs and landings in the
  type airplane in which that person is to serve.

EASA
FCL is very clear about it: PIC and co-pilot both need to be landing current. If holding an IR rating then specific night currency is not required. No instrument currency is required as long as the IR is valid.
FCL.060 Recent experience

(b) Aeroplanes, helicopters, powered-lift, airships and sailplanes. A
  pilot shall not operate an aircraft in commercial air  transport or
  carrying passengers:
(1) as PIC or co-pilot unless he/she has carried out, in the preceding
  90 days, at least 3 take-offs, approaches and  landings in an aircraft
  of the same type or class or an FFS representing that type or class.
  The 3 take-offs and landings shall be performed in either multi-pilot
  or single-pilot operations, depending on the privileges held by the
  pilot; and
(2) as PIC at night unless he/she:

(i) has carried out in the preceding 90 days at least 1 take-off,
    approach and landing at night as a pilot flying in an aircraft of the
    same type or class or an FFS representing that type or class; or
(ii) holds an IR;

ok, I've been buzzing my head for the last hour, but Part 135 still does not seem to impose and landing currency on SIC. Part 61.55(d) specifically exempts operations under 135. Then Part 135.245 only requires the INSTRUMENT experience from Part 61, which is only specified for PIC and not for SIC. What am I missing ? Is Part 61 more restrictive than part 135?

Well, Part 61 applies all of the time, unless superseded by another regulation.  I went ahead and updated those parts for you.  Thanks for pulling all of this together into one place!

ah! ok, that legal interpretation ties things nicely!

I know career 121 pilots who fly with gaps >> 90 days, with a yearly sim check session. How are they getting around the 3 T/O landing in type in preceding 90 day rule?

14 CFR 135.329 (e)(1) states that crew members are to be:

... adequately trained and currently proficient for each aircraft,
  crewmember position, and type of operation in which the crewmember
  serves

Which would indicate to me that the S.I.C. also needs a 135.293 ride in left seat which would also include an ILS to minimum as well as a non-precision approach.

They do indeed need a 293 ride (not necessarily from the left seat though), but that is a requirement of 135.293 which is not specific to PIC's, and not 135.329.

The requirement of 135.329 (e)(1) only calls for training and proficiency, not checking in each position in which the crewmember serves. This means that an SIC could do a 293 ride from the right seat, and subsequently receive adequate training and be currently proficient for flight from the left seat as an SIC.


text:
What is a stabilized approach?
Most (all?) airlines require the use of a stabilized approach, and it is constantly referred to as a safer way to land an airplane.
What are the criteria for an approach to be considered stabilized?
What makes it safer than a "normal" (unstabilized?) approach?

When you look at FAA publications the criteria for a "stabilized approach" is pretty simple:

A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant angle glidepath towards a predetermined point on the landing runway.

When pilots talk about stabilized approaches we generally mean a little more than that though - for example the SKYbrary description of a stabilized approach, the Flight Safety Foundation, and Airbus all include more than just the constant-angle glide path in their recommendations for what makes an approach "stabilized".
Criteria that are commonly included in a "stabilized approach" are:

Maintaining a constant-angle glidepath toward a predetermined aiming point on the runway.
Maintaining a specified descent rate
Maintaining a specified airspeed (Vapp)
(Generally being slightly above Vapp is OK, but below is unacceptable.)
Having the aircraft configured for landing (gear, flaps, etc.)
All required checklists completed
The approach can be maintained with only "small corrections" to pitch, heading, or power.

An approach is "stabilized" if all the required criteria are met by a specific altitude (Airbus calls them "Stabilization Heights", and recommends 500 feet for approaches in VMC, and 1000 feet for approaches in IMC).
If the approach is not stabilized by the appropriate stabilization height (or conditions cause the approach to become "destabilized" - a sudden change in winds for example) the approach is abandoned (a "go-around").

So what makes stabilized approaches safer?
The theory is that a stabilized approach reduces the pilot's workload as they're getting closer to the ground: If the aircraft is configured for landing and all the checklists have been completed all the pilot has to do is gently nudge the controls to keep the plane going where they want it, and they can concentrate all of their attention on a nice, safe, (hopefully) smooth landing.
Are stabilized approaches always safer?
From a workload perspective, yes. It's hard to argue with "The pilot has less work to do".
From a "What if my one-and-only engine dies?" perspective, maybe not.
Stabilized approaches generally require partial power to be maintained throughout the approach, and although the engines in modern single-engine piston/jet aircraft have a pretty good track record of reliability there are good arguments for "non-stabilized" approaches (or approaches that are effectively "stabilized" at idle power) in single-engine aircraft.
Even if you're not flying a "stabilized approach" the way the airline folks define it you're well-served by incorporating some of the elements though - going around if your checklists aren't completed by a certain altitude, abandoning the approach if you have to manhandle the controls to try to keep things together, etc.

The airlines I flew for considered a stabilized approach to be a constant airspeed and thus constant rate of descent from the outer marker to the flare.
It was touted as a safer approach because it removed the variable of a changing airspeed and thus a changing rate of descent. Controllers, I think, also more or less depend on it or for spacing when things are busy.
If, however, there's no traffic, I observed that whether American pilots used a stabilized approach was more often than not a matter of their experience. Personally, I never used a stabilized approach when I didn't have to. They waste time and fuel, and they're not as much fun.
Note my qualification of American pilots. We had the advantage, at least back in the days of a strong general aviation population, of having a lot of experience working up through different conditions and different aircraft types. Japanese and Korean pilots and others who had gone through ab initio training had never been taught anything but stabilized approaches and thus would always fly such.


text:
Is there an online source for European Instrument Approach Procedures?
The FAA offers instrument approach procedures on their website free of charge (FAA Charts).  Is there a similar site provided by EASA or the EU?

The other question, http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1539/are-the-airport-taxi-plans-available-online, also has some pointers (the question is about airport charts, but the sites have approach and departure charts too).

Eurocontrol has an online repository of European Aeronatical Information Services.
You'll need to register, but the basic service is free.
By default, the application is JAVA applet based, which works not in the best way. After logging on, you can change the default behaviour to HTML based, which makes it more user friendly.

Then clicking "Enter Application" will bring to the next level.
Here you'll find several reporting options, but what you are interested in is located under "PAMS Light [AIP]"

Select the country you are interested in, "Charts" for AIP type and "AD" for Aerodrome and there you have the charts.

It is still a Java applet involved even if you change it to plain HTML, don't know where or how, but you can't use it without Java. Don't ask me why, I've battled with it for quite some time.

@roe, strange. It works here without problems with my JAVA plugin disabled (both Firefox & Chrome). Are you sure you have selected "Simple mode" and applied the change?

@DeltaLima I am very sure. I'm not able to log on, or rather, as soon as I successfully authenticate it throws me out saying my Java is too old (< 1.6.something). I don't even have a Java plugin installed. Have to run it through my windows VM.

@roe I have the same now after logging out, restarting my browser and logging in again it doesn't let me past the authentication and complains about my Java plugin. I am not going to install an outdated security flawed Java version for them...

Each European country has it's own set of charts (AIP) and they're all different. Jeppesen company is making big buck by collecting data from national AIP's and then converting it into single unified output format. Lido company is also making the same thing, but they have less airports in their database and it's only for C, D class aircraft (i.e. for airlines).

As DeltaLime explained in his answer above, Eurocontrol published AIS information for all member countries in the EAD.


text:
What are the requirements to take the private pilot check ride?
In the US, what are the requirements that a student pilot must demonstrate to their examiner  before they can take a checkride for their private pilot airplane certificate?

Private Pilot Airplane Single-Engine Checkride Requirements
Eligibility Requirements (14 CFR 61.103)

Be at least 17 years of age for a rating in other than a glider or balloon
Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language
Instructor logbook endorsement certifying your aeronautical knowledge (14 CFR 61.105) and that you are prepared for the written test
Passed the written test and can present your original embossed Airman Knowledge Test Report
Instructor logbook endorsement certifying your flight proficiency (14 CFR 61.107)and that you are ready for the flight test
Log all required aeronautical experience (below)

Aeronautical Experience (14 CFR 61.109):

40 hours of flight time (35 for 141 schools) that includes:

20 hours of dual instruction
10 hours of solo flight training

3 hours of cross-country dual
3 hours of night dual (to get an unrestricted license) that includes:

1 cross-country flight of over 100 nautical miles total distance
10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport

3 hours of instrument dual
3 hours of dual in preparation for the practical test within 2 calendar months
10 hours of solo including

5 hours of cross-country time
1 150 NM solo cross country flight, with full-stop landings at three points and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of more than 50 NM between the takeoff and landing locations
3 takeoffs and 3 landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an operating control tower

I'm sure someone will post the exact regs, but as a stop-gap, from memory:

40 hours (35 if the school is part 141) minimum total time
20 hours dual instruction
3 hours flight "by reference to instruments" (under the hood)
5 hours solo cross country (50nm minimum between two points along each trip)
One solo 150nm XC flight with at least 3 airports (two of which must be at least 50nm apart)
3 hours night flight (dual instruction)
One night XC (dual)
10 night landings (full stop)
3 hours of dual instruction explicitly for check ride prep, within 90 days of the check ride
Endorsements for the items above needing endorsements
An endorsement from a CFI stating the candidate is prepared for the check ride.

Additionally, mine has a statement that my (part 61) CFI had seen my US passport (and its number) establishing proof that I am a US citizen, in accordance with 49 CFR 1552.3(A).

This was pretty close for being from memory!

Mah explained everything very well.
The non-flying requirements are:

Be at least 17 years old (14 years old for glider or balloon rating)
Be able to read, speak, write and understand the English language
Obtain at least a third class medical certificate from an Aviation Medical Examiner
Pass a paper/computerized aeronautical knowledge test
Pass an oral test and flight test administered by an FAA inspector, FAA-designated examiner, or authorized check instructor

Source: Wikipedia

Regulations are somewhat different for different aircraft (airplane, helicopter, glider, etc). I'll assume the question asks about private pilot for single-engine land-based aircraft (SEL).
For the United States, answer can be found in FAR §61 subpart E. Applicable sections are: 103(a),(c)-(j), 105, 107(a),(b)(1), 109(a).
Reference: FAR §61, Subpart E
Disclaimer: not a lawyer, just a humble student pilot navigating this gauntlet himself :-).

You may want to include the relevant requirements in your answer. As it stands currently this would be considered a link only answer, because in the (unlikely) event ECFR's link layout changes folks would have to go Google the FARs rather than having the information available to them here.